Canine case a test of court

Albemarle County’s first contested case under its animal noise ordinance adjourned Tuesday in hopes that a mediator would help neighbors find a solution to the battle over two barking dogs.

After General District Judge William G. Barkley paused testimony to suggest mediation, both the plaintiff and dog owner agreed that they would consider resolving the case outside the courtroom. If the parties can’t agree what should happen with a mediator, the trial is expected to continue March 13 in Albemarle General District Court.

The dogs in question are Scooter and Emmy, a pair of pups adopted by Carol Minetree almost two years ago. Minetree, who lives in the Earlysville Forest subdivision, said in court that she considers the dogs her companions and protectors.

“In December 2007, they woke me up in the middle of the night barking like crazy,” said Minetree, who then let them outside. “The next morning, I opened the front door and saw my house and car had been vandalized.”

Neighbor Peter Sweeney started noticing the dogs were barking a lot last February, he testified Tuesday in court. Sweeney said he communicated with Minetree through e-mail and in person about the dogs and what could be done to reduce their barking.

However, Sweeney testified Tuesday that Minetree’s attempts to quiet the dogs by limiting their view with fences and bark-control collars did not work. Sweeney said in court that a July 4 event at his home had to be moved inside because of the barking. After documenting when the dogs barked for several months, he finally requested a summons from the magistrate in the fall.

Sweeney testified that the dogs barked at anyone passing by, including when he was in his yard. He also said they barked when he was indoors.

“This has been extremely exhausting to me,” Sweeney said in court during a discussion about mediation. “I have no idea what else I could have done.”

In 2008, the county’s Board of Supervisors voted 4-2 in favor of an animal noise ordinance after residents complained of excessive barking in their neighborhoods. Under the ordinance, neighbors can seek a summons if an animal is making “excessive, continuous or untimely sounds” for 30 minutes or more with cessation no greater than five minutes.

Anyone who violates the ordinance can be convicted of a Class 3 misdemeanor and face a fine of up to $500. Repeated offenses can result in seizure of the animal.

The ordinance does not apply to animals on property larger than 5 acres in the Rural Area District. Livestock, chickens, animal shelters and commercial kennels are exempt.

Authorities have said one person was cited for a noisy dog under the ordinance before Minetree’s case came to court, although further information was not immediately available.

David L. Slutzky, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, voted in favor of the ordinance last year. After hearing about the Earlysville case Tuesday, he said he believes mediation was a good choice.

“The whole point of the ordinance was to create conditions under which these disputes can be negotiated where previously there wasn’t any recourse available,” Slutzky said. “The outcome sounds like an appropriate one.”

Supervisor Kenneth C. Boyd voted against the ordinance because he thought it was too open-ended and needed more revision. Boyd said Tuesday that he didn’t think one case would justify a review, but the board might want to look at it again if local judges say the ordinance is too difficult to deal with in a courtroom.

Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker, a dog owner who voted in favor of the ordinance, said there are reasonable ways to control a barking problem.

“People love their dogs,” Rooker said. “They become part of the family. But if you had a child who was outside screaming all of the time, someone should do something about it.”

Minetree said in court that she believes the dogs’ barking is under control with the help of fences and the bark-control collars. Sweeney declined to comment on the case after court.